A Conception's Right To Life

[Dawkinsrocks]

That is rich coming from the pro life lobby most of who love a bit of execution and war and support a religion that is riddled with the vilest acts of murder.

I actually don't understand christians who are against abortion as god carries out so many himself.

But in answer to your question, rights accrue in accordance with circumstances.

For example, animals have the right to be treated decently but they don't have the right to a fair trial.

Sometimes rights clash and a hierarchy evolves.

A few brainless cells do not have any rights.

A woman does.

And the constant personification of the foetus is evidence of the weakness of the 'pro life' lobby's argument.

It is not a baby, a child or a person.

They have accrued rights.

But the insistence on using these emotive and inappropraite terms to win hearts is why I keep offering you meal ideas such as KFE

 

[palerider]

I didn't see anything in the text book quotes you gave that indicate that killing a fetus is murder. I give more detail on this below.

And you would find nothing in the books stating that those who killed their slaves had comitted murder either. Do you deny that those who killed slaves were killing human beings whether the law recognized it or not?

Listen up. Chip refused to give a source. How could I possibly attack it? How many times do you have to read this to understand it?

Listen to what? You trying to rationalize a logial fallacy? You did nothing to prove the information he provided wrong. You merely complained about the source. That is a logical fallacy wether you recognize it or not.

My opinion is firmly grounded on the basis of the law and (your lack of) science. We have already discussed this, and I discuss both further below.

No it isn't. If it were, then you would recognize that in the eyes of the law, human being and person are interchangable terms and lacking any evidence from you that unborns are something other than living human beings, if your opinion were firmly grounded in the law, you would be asking why there is a class of human beings in the US who are being denied their most basic human rights.

No part of your opinion is grounded in the law. Your opinion is based on a court decision. A decision that you clearly are completely unable to ratioally defend. You are no more than a parrot on a stick repeating "its legal" ad nauseum.

Thanks for the heads up. Now we are getting somewhere. Those are State rulings that the USSC has not heard in a trial. From what I read, some of those rulings also carried an opinion that they should not be interpreted to have any bearing on Roe vs. Wade which involves a woman's choice (and not a man's gun). Until those rulings are considered, Roe vs. Wade still stands as the law.

Roe v wade stands as a court decision, not the law. Further, roe v wade acknowledges a woman's right to terminate a potential human life. Do feel free to provide some credible evidence that states that unborns are potential human lives. Unborn human beings are not even mentioned in roe.

Your citing of the cases above are factual, but your jump to anything concerning the USSC ruling at this point is only opinion - a judgement on your part. However, you are not a legal judge. Your bitterness is not going to change the law, and you are not going to drag me down to your mewling attitude toward the law as it now stands. You have not made your case. Your time might be better spent filing a court case that would satisfy you, rather than whining about the USSC ruling in this forum.

Are you denying that the court made its decision based on an assumtion that unborns are not living human beings? If that is the case, how about you reference the part of the decision that acknowledges that unborns are living human beings but a woman has the right to kill one anyway.

And you better do a gut check. It is me who is stating fact after fact after fact and referencing them to credible sources. It is you who is mewling your uneducated, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated opinion as if it amounted to a rational argument.

You are probably a lot younger than I, and see the holocaust as abstract history. But in my generation, the use of metaphors involving Adolph Hitler demeans the Jewish people. Your lack of emotion in that regard is telling. There is no question Hitler was morally depraved. What you are now implying is that the USCC has an equal depravity. I will not buy that as an argument. I trust the judgement of the USSC more than anyone of the likes of Hitler. If you don't, that is your problem. Your inability to distinguish between the authority of Hitler and the USSC is rather telling on the nature of your thinking. Arguments like yours hit the bottom of the moral bucket.

I am over 60 as if that had any bearing on the discussion. Hitler declared that a particular group of human beings were in reality, not human beings at all and as such, had no human rights at all in order to fulfill a pre-existing agenda. Our supreme court has done the same thing two times now. Both times in order to fill a pre-existing agenda. How exactly do you believe that the two are not morally equivalent in their actions. Of course, hitler only succeeded in killing 6 million before he was stopped while our court has the blood of over 40 million and still counting dripping from their hands.

I disagree. When you start equating genocide of mad man to the choice of women with their own bodies, you have lost sight of the human condition. Period.

Both are killing for reasons that amount to no more than convenience. Do feel free to describe a difference.

And it isn't the woman's body that is at issue here. There is a second body that you, and those like you discount entirely from the equation.

What on earth are you talking about?? It is the USSC that made the decision! Not me!! I have not selectively decided what women should do with their lives. I think you probably mean my view of the USSC, but you sure have a screwy way of saying that.

Of course you have. Did you not say that you find nothing reprehensible about killing a human being during the first trimester?

A fetus has "desires"?? That's a new one.

The fact that is alive and continues to live is evidence of having an interest in continuing to live.

Yes. In post #35 you cited three articles and highlighted your salient points in red:

The first excerpt was by John Fletcher who in another article, "argues cogently that if the Supreme Court has given women the right to choose whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term, sex selection is merely an extension of that right.... "[/qipte]

You really aren't very good at this are you? What he does with the information is irrelavent to the substance of the information. He freely admits that unborns are living human beings. His set of principles allow him to say that it is perfectly fine to kill them. Of course, there is plenty of money to be made in both killing them and performing experiments on them. Perhaps his principles are driven by a profit motive.

The point is that he admits that they are living human beings from conception.

It looks like 3/4 strongly disagree with you. As I said before: You have not made your case.

Of course I have made my case. My case depends upon 3 points.

1. Unborns at any stage of development are living human beings.
2. Human beings have a right to live.
3. The right to live takes precedence over any other right that may be invoked so long as one doesn't represent an imminent threat to another's life.

I have substantiated, and corroborated all 3 of those points.

The excerpted phrases that you provided describing the zygote are in fact remarkably similar the USSC definition of the first trimester - "potentiality of human life".

You have a reading comprehension problem? How, exactly, do you equate any of those statements to be the equivalent of "potentiality of human life" when they state explicitly that the unborn is both alive and a human being?

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

You can claim this all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Your concept of "law" is simply you making a judgement that is outside the current law. Your concept of scientific evidence is textbooks that use words that support the USSC concepts in their decision.

You clearly can't read. Here, try a few more and tell me that they describe unborns as potentiality of human life.

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

So, that's the best your "intellectual" mind can come up with? Well, my vitriolic friend you still have not made your case. It seems that you are reducing your arguments more and more to mere cheap mockery without merit.

And the wait continues for you to effectively rebutt a single fact that I have presented. Are you going to do it or not? Of course you aren't. You can't beause the facts simply are not on your side.

Here is my bottom line. Your type of religious fundamentalism scares me. It reminds me of those who want to teach creationism in science classes or believe the earth is 10 thousand years old.

So in addition to being a poor debater, you are a bald faced liar as wel. Do feel free to provide a single quote from me that suggests that any part of my argument is religious in nature. I am sure that you wish my argument were religious as it would then be as invalid, and pointless as your own.

You carry on in a bitter and mocking tone and show a deep-seated fundamentalist belief that reminds me of the fundamentalism of the Taliban and how they try to impose their moral ideals on women.

And yet, you can't point to a single quote from me that suggests my argument is religious. It is you who is presenting a faith based argument, not me. I won't hazzard a guess as to which faith your argument is based on, but it most certainly is faith based.

Faith is defined as a belief that is not based on proof. Your complete inability to offer up any sort of proof to substantiate the belief that you clearly hold so dear is blatant evidence of faith.

 

[Lagboltz]

Actually, not bad, Lagboltz ... I'm sure that struck home with you.

Thanks, Chip.

And yet you belittle, minimize, demean, sans relevant content those who present a rational, common sense, scientifically based argument that challenges you to relive the understandable guilt of your surface pro-abortionist's position, our rational, common sense, scientifically based argument for which you have no rational refutation.

The syntax of your quote is pretty good too. I have never seen anyone put together such long strings of adjectives and adverbs. However what you are trying to say is false, erroneous, inaccurate, specious, incorrect, untrue, and wrong.

So I urge you to knock off the posts like the one I'm responding to here that are solely unprovoked demeaning attacks on the poster.

Ok, I'm sorry I teased you. I will try not to do it again.

I asked you many posts ago how you felt about the rationally unconjecturable scientific fact that a person, a unique human being, begins to live at the moment of conception

Oh, I agree that "a human being begins to live at the moment of conception" but only in the sense that it is similar to the USSC's definition of the first trimester as "potentiality of human life".

What I was saying very early on is that you had lifted criteria for the definition of a life form and tried to make a scientific argument about a zygote being "alive". Those are two different things. You implied that your criteria did not come from Wikipedia, although text was identical, and you refused to give your source -- very unscientific for a presumably scientific argument.

I was criticizing your way of arguing the point, not your conclusion. Go back to my original post #10, #12, #20, etc, and you will see that I was not arguing that your understanding of a zygote was wrong, I was addressing your lack of understanding of scientific methodology in your OP.

I have said that many times. I don't understand why you can't understand that.

, and you have been silent, choosing instead to engage Palerider by posting one of the most blatant dodges of the heart of the matter I've ever read.

Read my post #82.

 

[palerider]

That is rich coming from the pro life lobby most of who love a bit of execution and war and support a religion that is riddled with the vilest acts of murder.

Still can't put a rational argument together huh? What part of my argument do you belive to be religious in nature? Do feel free to provide examples. And I don't claim to be pro life, I am anti abortion on demand.

I actually don't understand christians who are against abortion as god carries out so many himself.

So who said that I am a Christian? You? Based on what. Cearly you have no rational defense of your positon so you attack me. Personally, I love seing people like you reduced to impotent personal attacks.

But in answer to your question, rights accrue in accordance with circumstances.

Show me that in the constitution. I will wait.

Sometimes rights clash and a hierarchy evolves.

In that you are right. Our most fundamental rights are the right to life, liberty, and property. In that order. Of what use would a right to liberty or a right to property be if the right to live were not first secured? Therefore, the right to live outweighs any other right so long as one is not an imminent threat to another's life.

A few brainless cells do not have any rights.

Attempting to dehumanize a human being by calling it a "few brainless cells" exhibits the same mindset as one attempting to dehumanize a black person by using the word ******. You are simply an ageist rather than a racist. The mind set is the same.

And the constant personification of the foetus is evidence of the weakness of the 'pro life' lobby's argument

It is not a baby, a child or a person.

federal law identifies them using both the words human being and child. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I am not sure I know where to start but I will have a go.

The stuff about the pro life lobby was not aimed specifically at you which is why after a couple of statemnets I said that I will endeavour to respond to your post.

Nobody has the right to property, where do you get that from?

But the rights you talk about, even if they were rights would be the rights of adults and those rights differ to the rights of children and those rights differ to the rights of a foetus.

Comparing a foetus to a black person is yet another attempt at personification.

It is a good job you are not a scientist as any paper you submitted with claptrap like that in it would be rejected out of hand.

A new foetus is a few brainless cells. Which bit of that did I get wrong?

And a few brainsles cells do not have the right to life or else you are going to have to be very careful where you walk and drive

 

[Chip]

Lagboltz, I asked you back in post 40: How do you feel about the fact that science has presented beyond rational conjecture that at least one person, at least one unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception?

You've yet to tell me how you feel about the truth of it. Please do.

Oh, I agree that "a human being begins to live at the moment of conception" but only in the sense that it is similar to the USSC's definition of the first trimester as "potentiality of human life".

I'm confused by your phrase "only in the sense", as that appears to be similar in function to the word "but" which is, in this context, a refutation of the clause that precedes it.

Indeed, when you go on to say "potentiality" of human life, you have indeed contradicted your previous clause that "a human being" begins to live at the moment of conception, as a human being is not a "potential" human being, a human being is simply a human being, actual and kinetic. If a human being exists, there is logically no potential for that human being to be a human being because that person already is. The word "potential" logically does not apply.

I'm also intrigued by your appeal to the USSC rather than science in this matter.

USSC justices aren't scientists. Nor was their 1973 decision based on the later-revealed DNA and life science fact that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception.

Yet you like to side with the USSC 1973 decision rather than present-day revealed scientific fact of the matter.

Why is it that you appeal to the USSC of 1973 rather than to present-day science?

Does appealing to the USSC benefit you in some way that appealing to science would not?

If so, what is the way that it benefits you?

What I was saying very early on is that you had lifted criteria for the definition of a life form and tried to make a scientific argument about a zygote being "alive". Those are two different things. You implied that your criteria did not come from Wikipedia, although text was identical, and you refused to give your source -- very unscientific for a presumably scientific argument.

I was criticizing your way of arguing the point, not your conclusion. Go back to my original post #10, #12, #20, etc, and you will see that I was not arguing that your understanding of a zygote was wrong, I was addressing your lack of understanding of scientific methodology in your OP.

I have said that many times. I don't understand why you can't understand that.

Yes, yes, you can stick to your story all you want, but the truth of the matter remains that you entered this thread not to refute the form of my presentation but with the foundational intent to thereby refute its substantive meaning. Your divertive digressive allusions only substantiate that reality.

Read my post #82.

Yes, I just re-read it -- it was indeed quite the dodge ... which your "potential" disclaimer above confirms.

I do wish you'd get to the heart of the matter as to why you don't agree that a person, a unique individual human being begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

Your "potential" dodge is a lousy smokescreen.

 

[Chip]

I actually don't understand christians who are against abortion as god carries out so many himself.

Not being a Christian, or of any religious persuasion for that matter, I too must confess to not understanding Christians sometimes as well ... though, with regard to the topic, that's purely irrelevant.

But if you want to play the "God" card, Dawkinsrocks, which, incidentally, is not about religion, then consider ...

... That if God is the one who performs spontaneous abortion, and God is the one who gets people sick from disease, and God is the one who causes accidents, and God is the one who causes deadly disasters and famines and such that take the lives of human beings, ...

... Then why do we cringe when dictators in Africa withhold food from their citizens, starving them to death ...

... And why do we find terrorist-created disasters that kill people so revolting ...

... And why do we become incensed when a killer sets up an accident scenario that snares his intended victim ...

... And why do we become outraged when someone is spreading the deadly disease of anthrax in the mail to people ...

... Why, Dawkinsrocks?

The answer is because we get that it is wrong for people to kill people, even if there are times that it might be God who does kill people.

That's why people become outraged at murderous abortion, Dawkinsrocks: because it's simply wrong for people to murder people.

What God might do is God's business, God being who he is by definition.

But, though religion is irrelevant, even the major three social religions portray God as ordering us not to kill each other in "thou shalt not kill" manner, so if you want to try to understand Christians who oppose abortion, maybe that will help you.

But for the overwhelming vast majority, whether they're religious or not, their sense of outrage over people killing people is a natural human reaction, void of any need for outside "A"uthority validation.

That's really all there is to it.

But in answer to your question, rights accrue in accordance with circumstances.

For example, animals have the right to be treated decently but they don't have the right to a fair trial.

Sometimes rights clash and a hierarchy evolves.

A few brainless cells do not have any rights.

A woman does.

And the constant personification of the foetus is evidence of the weakness of the 'pro life' lobby's argument.

It is not a baby, a child or a person.

They have accrued rights.

You error in your understanding of what rights are, Dawkinsrocks, as well as in your understanding of what a person, a unique individual human being, is.

Please refer to: The Realities of Rights.

That should explain to you what rights are.

Once you grasp that, ...

... And you accept science's declaration that, no matter how many cells that person consists of, that person, a unique individual human being, is so from the moment of conception ...

... Then when you couple the scientific fact with the realities of rights, perhaps then you'll have sufficient information and knowledge to correctly conclude that non-life-or-death-self-defense abortion is killing that is sociologically described as murder.

People just don't like murder, Dawkinsrocks -- they hate and fear murder, and that's a natural healthy human response to murder, no matter who's being murdered and no matter who's doing the murdering.

I'm sure you understand that, don't you?!

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

A person implies a personality

Try to lose the emotive talk

Then try to explain why a few brainless cells has the rights you seem to think it objectively has.

I bet you can't do it without misrepresenting the foetus as something it isn't.

 

[Chip]

Comparing a foetus to a black person is yet another attempt at personification.

Erroneous.

Science has declared that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

The dictionary, as we all know, foundationally defines "person" as "a human being", and no other definitions of "person" ever override that.

Thus rational common sense long ago learned how to correctly apply the terms, such as "personhood", by appealing to unconjecturable definition and logically applying that to newly discovered circumstances.

Thus when science discovered a few decades ago that a human being begins to live at the moment of conception, the fact that a human being was discovered to be present at conception, logically attributed to that person the status of "personhood".

It really is that accurate and simple, Dawkinsrocks.

A new foetus is a few brainless cells. Which bit of that did I get wrong?

You are not wrong in your ascertation that, in effect, a newly conceived person has no brain.

But that's scientifically irrelevant with respect to being a person, a human being.

Science, as the opening and subsequent posts have confirmed, does not care that a person has yet to develop their brain for that person to be a unique individual human being, a person.

Your "no brain" sophistry is rejected by science itself.

And a few brainsles cells do not have the right to life

Absolutely false.

The realities of rights, that I linked you to previously, presents the truth about rights, and that truth is that the right to life is foundational and it applies to all people, no matter how old they are.

Your attempt to deprive the newly conceived person of that person's right to life is an egregious example of making an error from an appeal to the bias of ageism.

or else you are going to have to be very careful where you walk and drive

Your erroneous implication is inaccurate and irrelevant.

 

[Chip]

A person implies a personality

Wrong.

Being a person does not mandate that you experience the personality of that person.

"Personality" and "personhood" are two different things.

Nor does it matter whether you know someone or not for that person to exist.

Nevertheless, the newly conceived person most certainly does have a personality, a personality from the onset that changes over time.

You are just oblivious to the reality of it because you don't have a personal relationship with a newly conceived person.

But mothers, who can often feel the reality of their pregnancy shortly after conception and thus the presence of their newly conceived offspring have a personal relationship with that person from the get-go.

Your inablity to experience that reality does not negate it as being reality.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I knew you couldn't do it.

You don't like it when the correct labels are used do you?

In fact I am surprised you don't give cute names to the foetuses to make your arguments even more emotive.

'Personhood' that's a good one

Did you make that up all on your own?

 

[top gun]

Top Gun! your unconjecturably determined inaccurate inexact demeaning belittling inferior detraction is merely nothing but a fallaciously misconceived irrationality of delusional sophistry.

What Chip is doing is cute and kind of fun. I thought I would give you his answer so he doesn't have to bother.
It's also a good way of covering up pap with more pap.

point taken...

 

[top gun]

Erroneous and irrelevant.

Your pro-abortionist mindset deludes that moral relativist utilitarianism will rule the day.

I'LL BE DAMNED! Lagboltz must be a freakin' psychic!!!!!!!!

You paranoically fear, thereby, that if it doesn't, then someone will "control" your daughters, someone instead of you.

Maybe you fear having grandchildren that aren't from your approved man for your daughters.

Hmm or it could be I just want them to be safe and have access to any heathcare they choose.

As far as wanting to pick my daughters mate the fact is that I've got a wonderful grandson for my oldest daughters first marriage that I wouldn't trade for anything. My youngest hasn't had children yet but did suffer a miscarriage once so I know that's tough.

Pro Choice isn't about me... it's about them. I'm never going to be pregnate... nor will you.

As more and more people become aware of the scientific truth that people begin to live their lives at conception, the closer Roe v Wade comes to extinction.

Dude... come on... you're embarrassing yourself... it's very clear... it ain't never gonna happen.

Women in the United States of America will always have choice. For that matter they always have choice without Roe. They just throw themselves down a flight of steps, drink drain cleaner or go to an unsterile back alley abortion clinic.

You can't force someone to carry a child to term. All you can do is risk their life as well. The court saw this you should too.

The choice, Top Gun, remains yours.

OK... I choose to be in the right and leave all women's health issues up to each individual woman. No one has to have an abortion. I personally hope no one is in a position where they feel they must have an abortion... but I'm not them.

And, Top Gun, your daughters deserve better than to have a father who is so ignorantly careless of their psyches, as abortion can damage a woman for life.

Turning 52 years old this month I have two wonderful daughters and a wife and a mother and a whole lot of other women in my family...

You are presuming I chose their position for them... when it is they that informed me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8p1_mBCyo

 

[top gun]

Sorry guy, but you are fantasizing not only in your arguments in support of abortion, but in your thoughts about me. I have all the facts, and all the truth on my side.

Dude... you have nothing.

Get your pathetic little sign and go stand out in the rain screaming at women going into the women's clinic... because that's as close to overturning Roe that you will ever see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-f8Rrki2hM